there are apps/key combos depending on your system and software to grab just the contents of a window/component, etc and not have any of the other boundaries, borders, and other GUI related crap, etc etc.

plus, a screen grab can be cropped afterwards. looks like rush job.m.

19

meg

08-08-2003

08:06 AM ET (US)

It was photoshopped -- the shadows are all wrong. There is a person behind the big white guy whose arm should be shadowed for the man's shadow to appear on the car, for example. Several more shadows are incorrect.

18

yesno

08-07-2003

10:28 PM ET (US)

Wouldn't any screen grab of an image that wasn't full screen with no background require quite a bit a chopping to make useful? I mean, wouldn't you have to either cut out a lot of black background or lots of window borders, etc?

17

maf

08-07-2003

05:59 PM ET (US)

Lintilla is right. This is just the result of someone clueless at Photoshop resizing the image by doing a screen grab at a certain zoom, then converting the grab to JPEG.

For a lot of reasons, they should have used "Save for Web..." instead.

16

jonnyx

08-07-2003

03:51 PM ET (US)

at least it looks like they are using a mac:)

15

RodMcGuire

08-07-2003

03:47 PM ET (US)

usually it is considered a "legiimate" alteration to blur a license plate which was my first impression of what the cursor was doing.

Even if this changes the *facts* in the picture.

14

cypherpunks

08-07-2003

03:36 PM ET (US)

There's *tons* of stuff that's legitimate for news photographers to do in photoshop. Cropping's one, yep -- but also fixing color balance that's off, bringing out contrast, sharpening -- roughly, everything a photographer used to do in a darkroom.

What you can't do is change the *facts* in the picture.

13

Scott

08-07-2003

03:03 PM ET (US)

I always crop my pictures in Photoshop. Cropping is a widely accepted form of image alteration. I don't think any news organization would have a problem with a cropped image. This is nothing new and is certainly not newsworthy.

Edited 08-07-2003 03:03 PM

12

ernie

08-07-2003

01:30 PM ET (US)

So this 'war' we've been hearing about never even happened?

11

Joe

08-07-2003

01:10 PM ET (US)

Or you could learn to spell.

10

scotty1

08-07-2003

01:06 PM ET (US)

In my opinion, the NYT isn't trying to report the news. The seem to be on a social agenda.

9

scorched

08-07-2003

12:48 PM ET (US)

from my coworker: "maybe some geek just targeted the car with a UAV"

8

LKM

08-07-2003

12:46 PM ET (US)

Yeah, this has got *nothing* to do with Photoshop. It's *not* a "Photoshop artifact". The picture probably wasn't substantially altered. It's just a screenshot. Now why they took a screenshot we'll never know, but it's definitely not some kind of hint that the picture was altered.

7

Lintilla

08-07-2003

12:42 PM ET (US)

Very easy to deduce what happened here.

Lots of people don't have a clue how to save a Photoshop image in a resolution suitable for the web. The solution if you don't want to spend five minutes once and for all learning the fundamentals of electronically reproduced images is to make a screenshot when you've got it displayed at the right size...

6

Stefan Jones

08-07-2003

12:32 PM ET (US)

You're ignoring another possibility: The car had an arrow-shaped sticker up front that just happened to be facing the photographer square-on.